Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 0/4] Fix subsection ambiguity in the migration format

[Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>]

On 08/01/2011 02:54 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 07:15:21PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> I think we've set the bar too low historically for introducing new
>> interfaces.  I think Avi's new memory API is a good example of how we
>> should approach these things--do the vast majority of the thankless work up
>> front before initial merge.
>
> Yes, that seems to work a bit better.
>
> So how will we sort out and finalized the vmstate bits,

http://wiki.qemu.org/Features/Migration/Next

Is what I think we need to do next for migration.  In terms of VMState, 
I think we should can leave it in the current state its in for now.  If 
there is a desire to keep converting devices, that would be fine.

Because I think the next thing to do in terms of changing device 
serialization is to make serialization a proper virtual method of the 
base object class.  I think devices that use composition should also 
serialize their children as part of their serialization.

I think that falls under the banner of updating the object model.

> QMP, and making
> sure we have one sort of error reporting?

I've updated the QMP merge plan on the wiki:

http://wiki.qemu.org/Features/QAPI#Merge_Plan

We've merged phase one, and phase two shouldn't be that hard to merge as 
the code is already written.  It's just a matter of rebasing and 
incorporating in an incremental fashion.

Phase two eliminates qerror_report() in favor of passing Error **s. 
It's very invasive which is why we decided to merge in two phases.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori